Quinones v. City of New York
- Louis Stanton
- 1:24-cv-09758
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Quinones v. City of New York, Judge Stanton dismissed the pro se complaint as frivolous after finding its allegations irrational and unsupported.
Hilaria J. Quinones, whose complaint was dismissed, and the named defendants, because the court directed entry of judgment ending the action.
What happened
Hilaria J. Quinones sued the City of New York and numerous other named defendants, alleging that her rights had been violated through events including surveillance, privacy invasions, false arrest, and harm to her children. She sought $900 billion and removal of alleged implanted devices.
The court reviewed the complaint because Quinones had permission to proceed without paying filing fees. It found that her allegations about being framed, violently surveilled, harassed, and having her body and brain hacked or implanted lacked plausible factual support and were irrational under the applicable standard.
Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the complaint as frivolous, declined to allow amendment because the defects could not be cured, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Quinones v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-09758
- Louis Stanton
- May 12, 2025
Background
Hilaria J. Quinones filed the action without a lawyer. The named defendants included the City of New York; entities or officials identified as “FBI New Jersey,” “FBI New York,” “CIA officials,” “ICE officials,” and “ACS & Healthcare officials”; New York State; a law firm; and a salon, among others. The opinion states that the action was originally filed in the Eastern District of New York and was later transferred to the Southern District of New York.
Quinones alleged that defendants had violated “all [her] rights.” She described alleged privacy invasions, surveillance and harassment, false arrest, defamation, harm to her children, and hacking or implantation involving her body and brain. She sought $900 billion and “immediate removal” of the alleged implantations. The court had previously allowed her to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying court fees.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a complaint filed without prepaying fees if it is frivolous, malicious, legally insufficient, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that relief. The court must also dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read filings by people without lawyers generously, those filings must still provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.
A claim is frivolous when it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. The court explained that factual allegations may be considered frivolous when they are clearly baseless, fanciful, fantastic, delusional, or wholly incredible.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that Quinones did not provide plausible factual support for her allegations that she had been framed, subjected to violent surveillance and harassment, or had her body and brain hacked or implanted with devices. It found that these allegations reached the level of irrationality requiring dismissal as frivolous.
The court also considered whether Quinones should be allowed to amend the complaint. It stated that amendment was not required when the defects could not be cured and concluded that further amendment would be futile.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint, filed without prepaying fees, as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It declined to grant leave to amend and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.